Talk:List of stewards of the Chiltern Hundreds

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

1958 to 1970

Please note that while I can vouch for the exact dates in 1944-1958 and from 1970, I can't be entirely sure about those in between. In particular Peter Smithers' date may have been a few days different, and William Roots date is a complete estimate - but the real date is certainly betweeen 25th and 31st October 1967. Dbiv 20:22, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The earlier dates aren't quite correct. Southby resigned in 1947, not 1946, and Williamson in 1948, not 1947. Gzornenplatz 20:47, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

It was late, the PRO was chucking out, and the file always used the regnal year rather than calendar year. PS: the Civil Service had printed up a stack of Edward VIII appointment notes and decided to use them rather than go to the expense of printing up George VI ones. They were still using the Edward VIII ones in July 1947.Dbiv 23:12, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've now checked the 1958-70 dates with the London Gazette and corrected those which were inaccurate. Dates of appointments from 1902-44 will appear soon. Dbiv 11:42, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Missing Name?

I'm in the process of compiling information on Samuel Danks Waddy. One source says that he "accepted the Chiltern Hundreds" in December 1879. He does not, however, appear on this list. Is this list incomplete, or is my source incorrect? Thanks, JeremyA 02:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The list is incomplete - it doesn't include names before 1893 (when appointments appear in the London Gazette). David | Talk 08:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reasons for taking up Stewardship

Perhaps the reasons for taking the title could be included on this list: several of those I checked did so for "honourable reasons" (taking up posts elsewhere etc): while no mention is made in the relevant articles of taking the post in other cases.

Jackiespeel 21:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Kennedy

Is referred to on the list, but the link goes to a disambiguation page - can someone decide who is involved?

Jackiespeel 17:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Stonehouse

According to your entry on John Stonehouse, he applied for the stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds but did not sign the papers, making him ineligible for this list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.0.72 (talk • contribs)

That refers to when Stonehouse was first arrested in Australia in early 1975. He didn't apply for the Chiltern Hundreds then; he did in August 1976, after he had been repatriated, tried, convicted and sent to jail. Fys. Ta fys aym. 18:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Davis

He is currently down as 12th June (Thursday), but in fact "Mr Davis is expected to take the Chiltern Hundreds on Friday or Monday". Open4D (talk) 12:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to wait until there is an formal announcement before it is included here, and be properly sourced. 136.8.150.6 (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page layout

Anybody know why the reflist & SeeAlso jump above the list of stewards? Bazj (talk) 13:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC) i've tried removing the other elements, and that's not the problem. i think it's something to do with the headings that are used in the table. ninety:one 17:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The table was closed with two brackets instead of a bar and bracket. Many, many thanks to TenPoundHammer for taking the time and finding the solution.Bazj (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i tried that... or so i thought. thanks TPH! ninety:one 20:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vacancies

Agree that the post must have been vacant after David Davis' resignation, so he could fight the by-election he caused. But doesn't this apply to some earlier ones as well? At the very least, William McCrea in 1985. Ceemage (talk) 12:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)talk 12:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contents Index

There does not seem to be a Contents Index. Is this unique to me/my preferences or this wikipage? Þjóðólfr (talk) 19:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by a contents index? Ironholds (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article's table of contents has been suppressed using the __NOTOC__ magic word. (Oddly, the wikicode is located in the section #1850 - 1900 rather than near the beginning of the article.) The table of contents for the List of Stewards of the Manor of Northstead article is similarly disabled. But in both cases, I don't know why __NOTOC__ has been added. — Richardguk (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was added back when the article wasn't cut into sections; unless anyone dissents, feel free to remove it. Ironholds (talk) 22:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I have removed __NOTOC__. Þjóðólfr (talk) 08:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Becoming a peer

There are several who are listed as taking the Chiltern Hundreds on inheriting a peerage or accepting a new creation. Surely they did not need to take the Hundreds as they automatically lost their seats in the Commons by becoming members of the Lords.Captdoc (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no automatic disqualification in statute that I can find. As section 3 of the House of Lords Act 1999 removes the disqualification on membership of the HOC for hereditary peers that have been kicked out, it can be assumed that a) such a disqualification exists for all other peers and b) that that disqualification is unwritten. Similarly, because special provision is made by section 8 of the House of Lords Precedence Act 1539 for the Great Officers of State who are not Lords to sit on the "Judges' Woolsack" (ie in the middle of the benches) in the House of Lords, it can be assumed that members of the HOC are otherwise disqualified from sitting in the lords. It's something of a grey area and just another part of our constitution that would not do badly from codification. ninety:one 17:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Under the Recess Elections Act 1975 (and probably for some time earlier under legislation consolidated by that act), the Speaker must cause a by-election to take place if any two MPs certify during a Commons recess that someone has ceased to be an MP. But section 1(2) provides that a certificate cannot be issued where someone vacates a seat by becoming Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds or the Manor of Northstead. So perhaps these appointments (if created before the members actually became peers) were a device to prevent early by-elections.

Alternatively, perhaps these were titles that did not confer membership of the House of Lords, such as with some Irish peerages and courtesy titles.

— Richardguk (talk) 18:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update needed

This list is largely based on Appointments to the Chiltern Hundreds and Manor of Northstead Stewardships since 1850, published by the House of Commons Department of Information Services.

A revised version of that list was published in January 2010, which contains a significant number of new entries, and apparently some revisions. For example, I have just added a missing entry to the Northstead list.

I suggested that this list be fully checked against the new version of the Department of Information Services list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Bagwell

The History of Parliament states that the Member for Cashel was appointed to the Chiltern Hundreds on 9 November 1801, but he is not given in this list. Opera hat (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Mercer

Mercer has been added as taking up the office on 29 April 2014, but there is no citation. This has not been announced on the Treasury website, which is where it usually appears. It would seem that Mercer has not yet (as of 30 April) been appointed. Anyone have the reference to suggest otherwise? --Frinton100 (talk) 23:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this press release from HM Treasury was available by 21:00 yesterday. It's dated 30 April, but nowhere does it state that the appointment was made on 30 April, or any other date. BBC Radio 4's Today programme was reporting it on 29 April, and BBC TV News were reporting it on 28 April. The official date should be given in the London Gazette, but notices can take some days to appear in there. Here's a search query. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The PR is dated 30th April, which will probably be the date he was formally appointed. His personal announcement was made on the 29th, with rumours of it on the BBC on the 28th. Typically, appointments are made at least a day after a resignation is announced, and given that his statement came at about 19.00 on Tuesday, it would seem unlikely he'd be appointed to the Chiltern Hundreds the same day. I have therefore amended the date on his appointment to the 30th with a link to the PR. Frinton100 (talk) 13:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Frinton100: Here's the notice from the London Gazette. It's dated 29 April, and uses the text "has this day appointed". --Redrose64 (talk) 16:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Reckless

The article says:

The current office holder is Mark Reckless, who was elected as Conservative MP for Rochester and Strood and asked for appointment as Steward in order to force a by-election at which he stood as candidate of the UK Independence Party.

Surely this can't be correct though, because Reckless stood in the by-election and took his seat back in the Commons (albeit only for a few months till he lost it again in the general election). The whole point of the Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds role is that you are not permitted to be an MP whilst holding it, so he must have resigned as steward before the by-election? Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 15:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Stewards of the Chiltern Hundreds. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of Stewards of the Chiltern Hundreds. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1751 to 1849 split off to List of Stewards of the Chiltern Hundreds 1751-1849 to work around a Wikipedia technical limitation

This page uses a lot of templates. Wikipedia limits the total "expanded size" of a page to 2MB. For details about this limitation, see the explanatory text at the top of Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded.

I added the "?" parameter to the {{Data missing}} template, which helped some, pushing the "point of failure" past 1850, which made for a much cleaner split. It also makes the tables easier to read, especially on narrow-screen devices.

I moved the "Up to 1799" and "1800-1849" tables to a new page, List of Stewards of the Chiltern Hundreds 1751-1849.

Ideally, Wikipedia software would not have such limitations and such a split would not be needed. But it does, so something had to be done and a split was the most straightforward solution. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dual appointments

The Dual appointments section needs (i) referencing and (ii) clarifying.

Regarding the former, this is to prevent claims of WP:NOR.

As regards the latter, it should be emphasised that these were not simultaneous appointments - a person can't be steward of the Chiltern Hundreds and also steward of the Manor of Northstead at the same time - there would be no point. Other than Charles Beresford, who seems to have been steward of the Chiltern Hundreds twice (1889 and 1900) and subsequently steward of the Manor of Northstead twice (1903 and 1916), are there no people who accepted one of the two offices, and some time later, accepted the same office again? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]